"Coverage of Palin was more likely to include references to her family, physical appearance and social issues, particularly in newspapers and by political blogs, while coverage of Biden dealt more with foreign policy and the economy."

-- Wait. They included blogs? So, we're including Trig trutherism in the count. This study sounds kind of... useless. I'm not sure what is surprising about the study. Palin was relatively unknown, the only novel thing I learned about Biden is that he apparently makes off-color jokes about Dunkin Donuts employees and gets his history wrong when he can't plagiarize it. But, hey, at least he has a good story of overcoming adversity and, in general, means well. Of COURSE the new face gets more screen time than the old hand.

"Coverage of Palin was more likely to include references to her family, physical appearance and social issues, particularly in newspapers and by political blogs, while coverage of Biden dealt more with foreign policy and the economy."

The interesting this is that MSM sources probably wanted to be fair, but were constrained by Palin. Whenever she tried to talk about foreign policy and the economy nothing but unintelligible word salad would come out of her mouth. It probably seemed too overly partisan to comment on her incomprehensible rantings and ravings so they avoided discussing it altogether. Norms of the MSM prevented them from being truthful about her because no one as vapid and mentally ill had ever been nominated before and things like that aren't supposed to be said about a politician.

Andy: So, did anyone ever ask Biden what newspapers he read? Of course not, because it is an insulting question that implies you think the person is an idiot. The Courric, or however her name is spelled, interview was just a set of cheap shots that she could have been better prepared for, since Republicans, sadly, need to realize the media is not their friend.

Palin was acting like a total idiot that had never read a newspaper and knew nothing about the world around her. Seems like an obvious question to me. Her answer was quite illuminating.

If anything, the decision by newspapers and news shows to treat her with kid gloves was the true scandal that election season. They decided to be nice about her and everyone could hope she never got to take over because the truth about her (and McCain had done) was too obscene.

... Andy, if you really think she was treated with kid gloves, we can't have an intelligent conversation on this. There's only so much area where difference of opinion is valid and where willful self-deception takes over. If you honestly feel she was treated with more dignity than most public servants... well, hey. I've got a bridge to sell you.

Whenever she tried to talk about foreign policy and the economy nothing but unintelligible word salad would come out of her mouth.

I will stipulate that Palin is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer but to contend that Biden is smarter or could string a sentences together without coming off as a complete idiot is laughable.

I understand partisan hacks will defend to the death their man in office but Biden?

I often self-centeredly insert myself into the subject's position in a thought experiment to analyze the situation, thus:

1) If I had been Sarah Palin, would I have fared better? Could I have garnered more respect than she did?

2) If I had been Joe Biden, would I have fared better? Could I have garnered more respect than he has?

The answer to (1), I think, is "probably not". I'd have been more modest than she, less of a proclaimer, but so much of what the MSM did to her (TrigGate, her undeniable beauty, etc.) was almost entirely out of her control.

The answer to (2) is "yes, almost certainly". Biden controls most of what should rightly have exposed him as a fool. If he would just learn to shut his stupid mouth, he'd avoid trouble. But the MSM isn't that interested. We tend to forget that when Obama selected him, the MSM presented the choice as adding gravitas to Obama's ticket.

A friend asked me once why Obama picked Biden over say Clinton or any number of better qualified choices and my answer was simple and, to any reasonable person, blindingly obvious.

President Obama is not a smart person, definitely not the genius some think he is. The ability to speak well from a teleoromoter is not an indicator of intelligence. In picking Biden, he suddenly looks and sounds like Aristotle in comparison.

When you come down to it, most elected officials have probably average or slightly above average intelligence. I've met with enough over my lifetime that validates that assertion.

The study is useless: Clear thinking people who payed attention already knew Palin was treated differently. Partisan hacks will remain, despite the study, wedded to their belief that Palin was treated fairly. They must be anti-science or something.

Herewith I make a prediction: whomever Mr Romney selects to be his running mate, they will receive the same coverage and oppropribum as Ms Palin--the msm has already done a hit piece on Mr Rubio--and are rattling chains about Ms Haley. As long as they can pick up the meme about VP nominees they dont have deal with issues that the presidential candidates should be discussing.

When AndyR talks about complete idiots, I rather assumed he was talking about Mr Obama and Mr Biden--fortunately he clarified it for us.

The article says coverage focused more on Palin's family than Biden's. Gee, I guess that happens when you use your family as campaign props and you do interviews from your kitchen as you cook moose burgers.

Bob Eillison: The people and the media were already familiar with Biden for many, many years. Dude has been a national politician for decades and ran for prez all the wya back in 1988. The public didn't know anything abut Palin when she was plucked out of obscurity and thrown on a stage she was unprepared for.

As far as "TrigGate", that was internet bloggers who decided to examine the questions abut her pregnancy story. You know, like the right wing internet media obsessed on Obama's birth certificate. And, I saw yesterday on Drudge, the right wing online media is now asking questions about Obama's Social Security number.

Colonel Angus, a liberal friend once asked me my opinion of George W. Bush's intelligence, and I said something like "well, obviously he's reasonably intelligent, just judging by his school and career accomplishments". My friend was flabbergasted. "Seriously, you think he's intelligent?!" It seemed impossible to him that I, whom he thought was intelligent, could come to that conclusion.

I haven't heard from him since then. Maybe he has resolved the cognitive dissonance by concluding that I am an idiot.

I'm nearly certain that he or his staff read the WaPo and NYT daily. Which is not a plus.

But who besides old-fart politicians reads a newspaper rather than use a news aggregator? Yeah, you could say that you "read" a few dozen "newspapers" every day, but you don't really do that. You read a selection of articles from a wide variety of sources.

And yes, I think that's why Palin seemed to stumble in answering that question, when she said "all of them".

Leaving Palin out of it, it seems like women candidates in general are loathed, at the state and national level.

Attractive women in particular mainly due to the fact women by nature are catty and see beautiful charasmatic women as a threat so are more than willing to tear them down. The most vicious pundits were females. Following a close second were gays like Andrew Sullivan whose obsessive hatred was fueled for obvious reasons.

Back before there was internet, politicians used "clipping services." The drones would go thru the various papers and periodicals and clip articles for their boss--I doubt that most politicians, esp at the local level, dont read papers unless those articles pertain to their electability. But, of course, I am a cynic.

LoafingOaf, so are you saying that a fool like Biden well earns a pass from the MSM just by being around for a long time?

And RE: TrigGate, I think I see your point. Conservatives sometimes say about the right-wing wackos, "don't be silly; those are just loons that don't really influence the public". Liberals should have a right to the same argument, if you're saying that TrigGate was not influential. Is that what you're saying?

LoafingOaf:"...the right wing online media is now asking questions about Obama's Social Security number."

Did you know that with the first three digits of a Social Security number, you can tell what state issued it? The first three of Obama's indicate it was issued by the state of Connecticut.

Of course, no one should be curious about why Obama would have an SS# from a state he had never resided in. Just like no one should care that nearly everything in his background is "sealed", and that his own two auto-hagiograpies are now proven by Maraniss' new book to be total frauds, filled with "composite" people and fake stories to show all the discrimination he was subjected to but never really happened.

Colonel Angus, a liberal friend once asked me my opinion of George W. Bush's intelligence, and I said something like "well, obviously he's reasonably intelligent, just judging by his school and career accomplishments"

A goodly number of people can get through college and graduate school, even ivy league schools and still be lacking in intelligence. Book smart is one thing, self awareness and understanding of the world around you is another. Then again I have different metrics for grading intelligence.

For example, during the health care debates, Obama demonstrated his lack of intelligence by demonstrating that he didn't know the difference between liability insurance and comprehensive coverage. Now I don't expect him to be an expert on insurance, however, when you are using an analogy to try and sell a society changing piece of legislation, you should really know what you are talking about. That's not an oversight, that's flat out stupidity.

Colonel Angus, I think you're talking more about "wisdom" and "judgement" than intelligence.

I have a dog in this fight, since I went to Harvard College in the 80s. There simply weren't any stupid people there. Not any. The slower people I knew from public school before that would never have got passing grades at Harvard, which was filled with brilliant minds that scared me out of dreaming I could be an academic.

That's around the same era when Bush and Obama were in similar schools. Obama lacks judgement and wisdom, and he's an obvious affirmative-action hire, but he's not unintelligent.

The Journolist-driven echo chamber also created an environment in which people like Andy (i.e., people incapable of disagreeing with the conventional wisdom as per People magazine) could comfortably parrot their ignorant dismissals.

Colonel Angus, your analysis of why Obama picked Biden has merit. It was probably a big part of choice, especially when considering that Hillary Clinton was the obvious choice and would have added much more to the ticket.

But I think Obama has something else going on: he's lousy at hiring. Holder, Clinton (misplaced as SecState), Geithner, Biden, Lisa Jackson...the list of bad hires goes on and on. Again, Obama lacks not intelligence, but wisdom and judgement. Bush's hires, by contrast, make him look like Solomon.

The most striking issue with Palin's coverage was not the contrast between her and Biden, but the contrast between her and Obama. According the leftist media narrative McCain was unsuited to be president because he picked someone inexperienced as vice-president. This of course implies that experience has value.

But Obama was the most inexperienced and unqualified major party candidate of my lifetime, and the leftist medie didn't have a word to say about it. If Mccain / Palin was better politicians they would have turned that issue around on Obama every time it came up.

I think many people conflate wisdom with intelligence, myself notwithstanding. Your examples above do indeed demonstrate poor judgment, yet when we can provide a litany of examples of this behavior, I think it is reasonable to question his intelligence, or at least stop pretending he is the smartest President in modern times.

My example of Bill Clinton I believe justifies my opinion that Obama possesses an average level of intelligence.

I was reading a very attractive food blog that received few comments per post until the author posted about Palin gratuitously and completely out of place on the blog. Utterly non sequitur to the food she was talking about, and she got some 50 or so comments. About Palin. And then that same thing again. My heart sank. All the comments are vile and uninformed and bigoted as hat's. Apparently you're still reading hat. Ass hat. The ass you persist in responding to .

So I dropped the site. Too bad for me, that was an otherwise good place. Very irreverent and I liked that.

Last night I was watching comedy. A actor entered and spoke his lines, "That's the most intelligent thing since I listened to since Sarah Palin spoke." It's axiomatic!

*click*

It's everywhere. You can run. And run. And run. But you cannot hide. You can shut it off entirely but then it will pop up elsewhere when you least expect it. I have never seen a vice president candidate get this much rotten lying ass attention. Not even Dan Quail who at the time spelled potato the same way I did.

It is a shibboleth, yet another, that identifies on the spot a bullshiteater-bullshitblatherer. The way they say the word or touch the subject, not the subject itself. It is so disheartening.

But then the opposite of that is heartening. I do speak to people younger than myself every day and I am subversive as I can be, to test their attitude, and they're right on it. I'll ask, "so do you somehow feel you're being played?" And they go aggressively, "NOBODY likes being played."

Nobody I've met likes divisiveness. This is the most dividy administration - media consortium that I've ever seen. The HBO thing is just another example.

And the study. Well. There's a little foam on your education bubble. $1,062 credit hour non resident. Oh. Plus $48.00 segregated fees. Segregated fee, click on it to see what that is, tax by another name.

Hey OafIf Biden was such a well-known commodity then ask the people around you whether they know why he dropped out of the 1988 race. I'll bet you that most don't even know he ran and those who do either don't know why he dropped out (the younger ones) or have forgotten (the older ones). I've done that experiment so I'd be interested in comparing results.

Andy R. said...Palin was acting like a total idiot that had never read a newspaper and knew nothing about the world around her. Seems like an obvious question to me. Her answer was quite illuminating.

Why would she read democratic house organs? That alone is sufficient to indicate her intelligence and wisdom. No one who could vote for Slow Joe has a right to call anyone an idiot but for themselves. Not only is Joe awesomely stupid,he is a cheap bastard as well. His charitable donations are a joke for someone with his earnings and a cheeky basted for charging the government rent on his vacation home so the secret service can protect him and his family.

My dog is a genius compared to Biden. And a rock is more useful than Biden. His selection tells anyone that wants to see, just how fundamentally unwise Obama is. Picked the one guy in America that is certifiably more of a fool than he is.

Bush was considered an idiot by the members of the Church of the New Left, never mind that his GPA was better than Gore's or Kerry's and since Obama won't release his, its safe to assume Bush also had a better GPA than Obama.

The interesting this is that MSM sources probably wanted to be fair, but were constrained by Palin.

They wanted to be so fair to Palin the AP had 11 reporters fact check her book "Going Rogue." How many for Obama's "Dreams?" There are so many things the MSM let go on Obama it isn't funny.

Meanwhile, it's the same MSM that makes stuff up about Bush's service record, etc. How anyone can view this as "Fair" is shocking. Unless "Fair" means agree with my liberal agenda, or I'll destroy you.

Palin didn't "use her kids" any more than any other politician does. They get dressed and shined up and stand on stage with mommy or daddy and occasionally are recorded doing something cute. Ads show the candidate in wholesome family settings being a good parent.

Normal.

Suddenly deciding that this is something more or different than what everyone else has done is, well, bull shit.

That we got tons of happy stories about the Obama girls getting a puppy didn't make it okay to attack them, but it sure as heck was *political* benefit for Obama, all the same.

" Palin was relatively unknown, the only novel thing I learned about Biden is that he apparently makes off-color jokes about Dunkin Donuts employees and gets his history wrong when he can't plagiarize it"

I'll bet that more Americans today know who Sarah Palin is then could name the current vice-president if asked.

Outside of Delaware, nobody not involved in the political establishement knew who Joe Biden was, and they still don't.

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant--they're quite clear--that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments." Sara Palin

"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams. (from the Treaty of Tripoli, introduced to the Senate and signed by Adams, and which was ratified unanimously.)

In general, the founders were Deists. Christianity was not their purpose. Jefferson was very clear about this, and Franklin--well, Franklin would never have stood for a religious state. Washington occasionally dropped in at church, but was not a practicing religious man.

Many of them were also Masons, which doesn't make them anti-Christian, but does explain why we have Masonic symbols on our money. We didn't have Christian-type symbols (like, "In God We Trust") until the 1950s--the Cold War.

"And do you hitch your star to the notion that the founding fathers were anti-Christian?"

No. Being agnostic does not logically mean non-Christian. I think their sense of freedom of and from religion would have been offended by that notion.

On the other hand, to say that, essentially, the Founders intended to establish a Christian state is fundamentally wrong. There's a reason why the First Amendment is first in the Bill of Rights.

'"Complete moron totally unsuited to serve as Vice President was treated differently than accomplished politician well qualified to serve the position. News at 11!"

-- That's kind of harsh to say. Biden was a Senator, he was qualified enough. Not as much as a successfully, corruption busting governor, but still qualified.

...

According the leftist media narrative McCain was unsuited to be president because he picked someone inexperienced as vice-president.'

Palin was the ONLY of the candidates for the top 2 positions who had any RELEVANT experience; being a legislator requires a different skill set than being an executive, and Palin had been chief executive of a state larger than many sovereign nations in size, population and economy.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: the party that nominated John Edwards for the same position four years earlier, and anyone who voted for the ticket with John Edwards on it, are not in a position to offer the slightest criticism of Mrs. Palin.

People say Jefferson was a Deist (when they're not calling him an atheist). And yet when Jefferson died he did not put President on his grave marker but he did put author of the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Read it, it's beautiful. Like in his Declaration of Independence, you will note his rather prominent mention of God.

The overwhelming majority of Framers were, of course, Christians.

Franklin would never have stood for a religious state.

Who wants a religious state? Palin's not calling for a religious state, any more than Lincoln did.

"Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty."

I think their sense of freedom of and from religion would have been offended by that notion.

It is absolutely bizarre to say there is a "freedom from religion." The Constitution doesn't regulate churches. It doesn't regulate people. So how is it that you are free from religion, Leslyn? And how many people do you have to silence before you achieve this "freedom"?

It's like saying you have a freedom from hearing offensive speech or a freedom from seeing black people. No, sorry, our society is filled with the religious and you will not be able to silence or shut them up.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This was the result of agreement of religious groups IOT prevent any one religion from having preference or power.

It's about making laws to that effect--therefore I think the Founders intended freedom from religion (the Establishment Clause), and freedom for religion (the Free Exercise Clause.)

Legally speaking, it's a balancing act. Personally speaking, it means I cannot be forced to submit to or participate in religious practices or activities. I also can't prevent anyone from engaging in their own practices as long as they do not impinge on me. That's important to me. Hear me: no one will make me pray in a certain way, or at a time or place. No one shall tell me my religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are wrong, or that I may not practice them when they do not impinge on others.

So basically, I don't care that others practice their religion. It's not my business. But--keep your hands off mine.

And do not pretend that our government was somehow officially established "under God," or that the government can establish laws based on a Judeo--Christian religious system. That's unconstitutional.

I am reminded of what Anglican Bishop Latimer is believed to have said to Nicholas Ridley as both were about to be burned at the stake for refusing to recant their faith:

"Be of good comfort, and play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

You said, No, sorry, our society is filled with the religious and you will not be able to silence or shut them up. By the grace of God I pray that to remain forever true. But nor shall I allow other religious to silence me in what I believe to be true--that our government is not established under any true religion, and that I am not required to assent or submit to any form of a religious government. In holding true to that, it is well for me to remember the conviction of Bishop Latimer.

No one shall tell me my religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are wrong

Or what, they go to jail?

It's just bizarre how people try to turn the establishment clause into a censorship provision.

Legally speaking, it's a balancing act.

Ha! The Court has eviscerated the free exercise clause to where it now only protects free speech. As if religion is just human speech.

Meanwhile, the Court has used the establishment clause to silence and censor religion and to banish it from the public square.

The Court's interpretation of both religion clauses has been wildly dishonest and motivated by an antipathy to religion that's common among Supreme Court Justices, but not at all common among ordinary Americans.